Blog @ MoreWhat.com

The Obama Cover-up Unravels: Obama Tells CBN-CNN That NRLC is ‘Lying,’ but His Campaign Confirms the NRLC Charge the Next Day

Contact: Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, Susan Muskett, J.D., Legislative Counsel, 202- 626-8820, Legfederal@aol.com; NRLC Department of Media Relations, 202-626-8825, mediarelations@nrlc.org

WASHINGTON, August 18 /Christian Newswire/ — Senator Barack Obama’s four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel.

In the most recent developments, Senator Obama himself, in a videorecorded interview Saturday night with David Brody of CBN News (subsequently broadcast on both CBN and CNN), said three times that National Right to Life was “lying” in asserting that he had voted against a state bill virtually identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. He did not directly address newly uncovered documents that had been released by NRLC on August 11 — documents that proved that he had done exactly that, contradicting four years of the Obama cover story.

In response, on Sunday, August 17th, we issued a challenge to Obama to either declare the newly discovered documents to be forgeries and call for an investigation of the forgery, or admit that he had misrepresented his record on the live-born infants legislation (not just once, but for four years), and apologize to those he’s called liars.

We don’t have an apology yet. But now there is this, in a news story posted on the New York Sun website on the evening of August 17th: “Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday . . . [Obama’s] campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate . . .”

NY Sun: Obama Facing Attacks from All Sides Over Abortion

Here is a summary of what came before:

In Congress, from 2000-2002, while Barack Obama was still a state senator in Illinois, we here in Washington, D.C., were dealing with the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), a project in which I was deeply involved. The original bill was a simple two-paragraph proposal — it established in black-letter law that for all federal law purposes, any baby who was entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who showed any of the specified signs of life, was to be regarded as a legal person for however long he or she lived, and that this applied whether or not the birth was the result of an abortion or of spontaneous premature labor. NARAL immediately attacked the bill as an assault on Roe v. Wade: “The Act would effectively grant legal personhood to a pre-viable fetus — in direct conflict with Roe. . . . In proposing this bill, anti-choice lawmakers are seeking to ascribe rights to fetuses ‘at any stage of development,’ thereby directly contradicting one of Roe’s basic tenets.”

See http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/NARALonlive-born.pdf

Nevertheless, the vast majority of “pro-choice” House members — including hard-core pro-abortion leaders such as Jerrold Nadler — were unwilling to extend the principles of Roe to living babies entirely separate from their mothers. They rejected the NARAL claim and voted for the bill; it passed the House 380-15. (Nothing like that had ever happened to NARAL before.) But the bill was killed in the Senate by an objection to unanimous consent.

In 2001, in Illinois, a bill was introduced in the state Senate that was closely patterned on the federal BAIPA, to govern constructions of state law. It contained an additional sentence, which read, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” (We’ll call this the “immediate protection clause.” It really just repeated the substantive effect of the other paragraphs.)

Obama voted against this bill in committee. On the floor he gave a speech attacking it and a couple of other related bills (the only such speech by any senator). Although the speech was technically made during consideration of another bill, SB 1093, Obama said that his reasons applied to SB 1095 (the BAIPA) as well. He then voted “present.” Voting “present” was a tactic recommended by the local Planned Parenthood lobbyist; under an Illinois constitutional provision a bill is deemed passed only if it receives an absolute majority of the sworn members of the House or Senate, so the operative effect of a “present” vote is the same as a “no” vote.

The core of Obama’s speech was the same as the 2000 NARAL attack at the federal level — the bill violated Roe v. Wade because it applied to “a pre-viable fetus.” Here is what he said:

“Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -– a child, a nine-month-old –- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it –- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”

It did not seem to matter to Obama in 2001 (or to NARAL, in 2000) that the “fetuses” (sic) in question were entirely born and alive. Because, you see, they were “pre-viable,” and these were abortions.

The 2001 bill passed the Illinois Senate despite Obama’s objections, but died in a House committee.

In Illinois, pretty much the same events repeated in 2002, although this time Obama voted “no” on the floor. Meanwhile, in Washington, an additional clause was added to the federal bill, which we call “the neutrality clause.” (The “neutrality” clause read, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.”) We saw this clause as no substantive change — it merely made explicit the original scope of the bill. Nevertheless, with the change, the bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress, and was signed into law in 2002. (To view the final federal BAIPA as enacted, click here. To view a chronology of events pertaining to the federal BAIPA, click here.)

But in Illinois, Obama kept fighting, now from a chairman’s chair. In 2003, the state bill was reintroduced in its original form, but the chief sponsor also introduced “Senate Amendment No. 1,” an amendment to remove the “immediate protection clause” and insert the exact language of the new “neutrality clause” from the federal bill. Adoption of “Senate Amendment No. 1″ would transform the state bill into a virtual clone of the now-enacted final federal bill/law. Both the bill and the amendment were referred to a committee of which Obama had just become chairman (the Democrats had taken majority control of the Illinois Senate in January, 2003).

On March 12-13, 2003, Obama chaired a meeting of the committee at which Senate Amendment No. 1 was adopted (with his support, 10-0). This transformed the state bill into a virtual clone of the federal bill; see them side-by-side here. Obama then led all of the committee’s Democrats in voting to kill the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4. (We didn’t know about this meeting until about two weeks ago.)

The very next year, the cover up began.

When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his Republican opponent criticized him for supporting “infanticide.” Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been added to the federal bill. As the Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004, “Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. . . . The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion.”

Obama’s explanation was false, but the local newspapers did not uncover the March 13, 2003 records, and they accepted the explanation uncritically. The Obama campaign has been quoting the resulting stories ever since.

During Obama’s 2008 run for President, his campaign and his defenders have asserted repeatedly and forcefully that it is a distortion, or even a smear and a lie, to suggest that Obama opposed a state born-alive bill that was the same as the federal bill. See, for example, this June 30, 2008 “factcheck” issued by the Obama campaign, in the form that it still appeared on the Obama website on August 7, 2008. The Obama “cover story” has often been repeated as fact, or at least without challenge, in major organs of the news media. (Two recent examples: CNN reported on June 30, 2008, “Senator Obama says if he had been in the U.S. Senate in 2002, he, too, would have voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because unlike the Illinois bill, it included language protecting Roe v. Wade.” The New York Times reported in a story on August 7, 2008 that Obama “said he had opposed the bill because it was poorly drafted and would have threatened the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that established abortion as a constitutional right. He said he would have voted for a similar bill that passed the United States Senate because it did not have the same constitutional flaw as the Illinois bill.”)

On August 11, 2008, we (the National Right to Life Committee) released recently uncovered legislative documents demonstrating that Obama had, in fact, presided over the meeting at which the bill was transformed into a clone of the federal bill, and then voted down. Although these documents contradicted numerous emphatic statements by Obama and his campaign, only some of which are referenced above, so far they have been virtually ignored by mainstream news media.

On or about August 14, the Obama campaign submitted to Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune a “defense,” which on August 14 was posted on Zorn’s blog, which mostly repeated the old Obama line and which did not specifically reference the documents released by NRLC, but which did contain a new element: a purported side-by-side comparison of the state and federal BAIPAs. The comparison asserted that the “immediate protection clause” was still part of the bill that Obama voted against (it was not — but why would that clause bother him?), and asserted that the “neutrality clause” was merely a “failed amendment, not included in final legislation” (false - it was adopted 10-0). The posting also contained many ersionary provisions — references to an entirely different bill, misleading characterizations of an old, loophole-ridden Illinois law, etc…

On August 16, in a short interview with CBN News’s David Brody, Obama was asked about the growing controversy surrounding the National Right to Life release. In his response, Obama asserted three times that we were “lying.” See it here: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429328.aspx

Late on August 17, the New York Sun posted a story by staff political reporter Russell Berman, which said in part: “Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported ‘was not the bill that was presented at the state level.’ His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate . . .”

The campaign then tried to shift to a new objection to the “identical bill” — that it “could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.” Given the language of the final state bill, this claim is absurd, unless Obama believed that “existing Illinois abortion law” allowed for “abortions” to be carried to a lethal conclusion even after a live birth. The newest line is also not consistent with Obama’s oft-stated excuse for opposing the state legislation, and fails to explain his four years of misrepresentation.

Nor does the Sun story indicate that the Obama campaign has issued any apology to NRLC, Bill Bennett, or the others who Senator Obama and his campaign have been calling liars for saying what they now admit was the truth.

How to make sense of all this? All of Obama’s misrepresentations and contradictions on this issue have one common goal: to obscure the position he actually articulated and acted on in 2001 through 2003. Obama explained in 2001 that he opposed the state bill to protect born-alive infants because it would apply before the point of long-term survivability — so-called ‘viability.’ This is the same objection that NARAL originally voiced to the federal bill, in 2000. But that was exactly the point of the bill — to make it clear that a live-born baby was a legally protected person for as long as he or she lived, whether for a day, an hour, or a minute.

Neither the original version of the legislation, nor the final state version that Obama killed in 2003, contained any language to protect babies before the point of live birth. On the 2001 and 2002 state bills, Obama took to a position that already had been rejected by the U.S. House 380-15 (in 2000). In 2003, Obama took a position on the abortion-survivor legislation that was more extreme than any member of Congress of either party.

The Obama campaign and its apologists are now asserting that the state Born-Alive Infants Protection bill was part of a “package” of bills. This is an obvious attempt to change the subject and avoid prolonged scrutiny of Obama’s record on the sole bill that has been the focus of the national debate, that being the bill that was copied from the federal bill. In 2001-2003, there were various bills in the Illinois Senate that dealt with the procedures to be followed during very late abortions, but those bills each had separate numbers, were each subject to separate amending processes, and were (of course) each voted on separately. The 2003 Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill (SB 1082) could have been passed regardless of what happened to the various abortion bills — and SB 1082 would have passed the Illinois Senate in 2003, if Chairman Obama had not killed it in his committee.

The Obama of 2001-2003 really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public.

Additional Resources:

Index of Documents Regarding Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill (will be updated as new items come in)

“Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill” (August 11, 2008 NRLC release of newly discovered legislative documents)

Timeline of important events in the history of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

NRLC archive on the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

NARAL press release, July 20, 2000, expressing strong opposition to the original federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 4292).

The official report of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, explaining the intent of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 2175), and explaining why such legislation was necessary (August 2, 2001)

SEE ALSO: Third World County, The Obamassiah Changes Name to Joseph Goebbels

If you don’t see a problem with Hillary Rodham Clinton courting votes from a religious conference on AIDS then you are not looking hard enough. And it could be said you are intentionally ignoring headlines like the one below suggesting Clinton, AIDS and evangelicals make an unusual trio. And a ‘pastor’ named Rich Warren associated with what is described as a Mega Church and a bestselling non-fiction book to the tune of $23 million dollars should appear on your radar.

Some say there are those in the religious right migrating to the left based on issues other than abortion. With the left being firmly entrenched in surrender, gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans gender agendas and partial birth abortions as well as the ACLU and removing religion from American life, you have to ask yourself what’s wrong with this picture?

Clinton, Democrats find religion, court evangelical voters
Clinton vows to fight AIDS
Hillary presses for more fund to combat AIDS
Clinton woos evangelicals at AIDS conference
Clinton Urges Sweeping Action on AIDS
Clinton, AIDS and evangelicals make unusual trio
Third Annual Saddleback Global Summit on AIDS & The Church Focuses
Clinton Announces AIDS Plan

And the obvious political quid pro quo of gimme your votes and I’ll secure public funds for your private agenda should send up flags for voters. Of the candidates in the 2008 Presidential campaign, Giuliani and Clinton are at the bottom of the list of those viewed as religious. While not a surprise it appears Hillary Rodham Clinton is getting religion to pander for votes.

Funny how the ACLU and other liberal organizations like the Democratic party pounce at every opportunity to use the separation of church and state to remove religion from American life but now in the middle of Presidential campaign another scam HRC wants you to believe is that she’s got religion. The only reason she is getting religion is for votes.

If the evangelicals described in this story are willing to abandon what are perceived as core religious values to secure funding for an AIDS campaign this would not be a match made in heaven. For years evangelical values have been compared with conservative values and most often characterized as compatible. The partnership being considered at the Mega Church is beginning to resemble US foreign policy over time where alliances between friend and foe become blurred.

But Clinton told the audience of about 1,700 people that action goes hand in hand with faith. She won applause when she proposed $50 billion for AIDS treatment and prevention and promised to “set a goal of ending all deaths from malaria in Africa” - where 1 million die annually from the disease - by the end of a second term.

The Democratic candidate did not shy away from more controversial ground, telling congregants “it is long past time that we do everything we can to stand up for the proposition that women’s rights are human rights.”

“Girls denied their human rights are girls at risk for AIDS. … Even in our own country today, women are now the face of AIDS,” she said, arguing that world and church leaders must address the sexual trafficking of girls worldwide.

Apparently Hillary Rodham Clinton is borrowing from her old speeches as First Lady that are still available. She made speeches at UN events on women’s rights while she was in the White House with Bill. Most other docs she is keeping from the public until after the election. The quote above seems to be a near verbatim repeat of those earlier speeches. But AIDS is not solely a women’s issue. In case she has forgotten, there are two sexes in the human species. But the applause she received would indicate these evangelicals are on board for $50 billion for their votes. And Clinton is happy to postpone her other promise to a requested second term at which time it will no longer matter if she does not deliver aside from your $50 billion.

If you cannot see the obscene scam being perpetrated by Hillary Rodham Clinton you have chosen to close your eyes and ignore it.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, AZAMATTEROFACT, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke’s, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The ad campaign criticizing Mitt Romney on abortion by what is described as a GOP group favoring abortion rights proves two things.  The group may favor abortion but to claim they are Republican runs counter to the pro-life position of conservatives.  The second thing it proves is pro-choice advocates are convinced that Romney is firmly opposed to abortion or they would not waste the money on the ad.

So for those of you who may be undecided on Mitt Romney for President due to the abortion issue, this should clear things up for you.  Although Mitt Romney may not enjoy 100% support from all who claim to be pro-life, for months now many pro-life and religious groups have accepted the fact that Mitt Romney is opposed to abortion.  The ad referred to above is simply more evidence that those who support abortion oppose Mitt Romney.  And the rumor that the group has an association with liberal Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani does not hurt Romney’s case either.

A Republican group that favors abortion rights plans to hit Mitt Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire with a TV spot and newspaper ads over his change of position on abortion.

“Governor Romney will not back down from his pro-life position, despite this group’s attempts to weaken the party platform and promote Mayor Giuliani’s pro-choice candidacy,” Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said.

For those readers not aware and to borrow the phrase ‘in the interest of full disclosure’ this blog fully supports Mitt Romney for President.  But facts are facts and if a pro-choice attacks a candidate with a pro-life position it serves as evidence the candidate’s pro-life position is valid.  The strange thing is having a group claim to be Republican or conservative and holding a pro-choice stand.  It is hard to believe they are associated with the GOP but easy to believe they are pro-choice and again only serves as evidence that Mitt Romney opposes abortion.

If you haven’t already, throw your support behind Mitt Romney.  You won’t be disappointed.

Mitt Romney’s stop in Nevada after winning the Iowa Straw Poll is detailed in the report below. Some interesting facts about Nevada are also included. For instance, it is possible a nuke waste center will be located 100 miles north of Las Vegas. It would not be surprise if people in Nevada glowed in the dark based on their history connections to things nuclear.

Someone from Obama’s camp joked that they didn’t think Democrats were allowed in Las Vegas. Dems are outnumbered 4 to 1. Since the state passed a pro-choice law and conservatives are largely pro-life, there must be a lot of Dems somewhere in Nevada. But then you can get married and divorced in Vegas all in the same day, so why wouldn’t they accept abortions too? That 87% of the land is government controlled is another surprising detail.

Based on the report Romney hit all the talking points and carefully avoided some of the local issue positions that would benefit no one by addressing. No sense starting trouble on issues everyone in the room knows are split.

Much has been made of Romney’s wealth in the news lately. With all but Biden, Huckabee and possibly Obama ranked at seven figures and above there are no destitute candidates. Since the public seems to take CEO and pro-athlete incomes in stride, the media push to talk about political incomes looks like nothing more than stirring the pot. Romney’s intelligence, discipline, work ethic and history proves he successful and the money is an indicator of that. While the American dream is trumpeted as the great opportunity, when success comes in figures like Romney’s all that seems to be shoved aside. Rather than admire the accomplishment, it becomes a political insult from the opposition. The usual contradictions apply and the intent is calculated. Successful people get results. That is why Romney is a good choice for President. He will get results. Something Washington has lacked for a long time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Romney campaigns in rural Nevada following Iowa poll win

August 13, 2007
By BRENDAN RILEY
Associated Press Writer

ELKO, Nev. (AP) - Mitt Romney stressed his conservative credentials Monday in his first public campaign stop in Nevada and, while critical of Washington, D.C., politics and handling of the Iraq war, avoided a direct slap at President Bush.

If this excerpt from a speech to a United Nations Conference in China on Women’s Rights were given by Hillary Rodham Clinton today, would she have added that it is a violation of human rights to crush the skull of a baby in a partial birth abortion? The statements in her women’s rights speech appear to contradict her opposition to the Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v Carhart on partial birth abortion.

from a speech by then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China September 5, 1995.

It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.

It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution.

It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.

It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.

It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes by their own relatives.

It is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation.

It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

Hillary Clinton’s statement on partial birth abortion from her campaign website…..

4/18/2007
From the Senate: Statement on Supreme Court’s Gonzales v. Carhart Decision

Washington, DC — “This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.”

The statement above is a pathetic attempt to walk the political tightrope and offend no one. Carefully crafted to avoid the fact that the SCOTUS decision bans a brutal, barbaric and unnecessary procedure. With Hillary’s earlier statements on women’s and girl’s rights, how would she decide the dilemma of the baby in a partial birth abortion being a female? Do the mother’s rights trump the baby girl’s rights? They are both the same gender. How does that work in your world, Hillary?

What do abortions have to do with equality? Rather than ‘reproductive rights’ where is personal responsibility for one’s actions. The baby did not make you pregnant and crushing the baby’s skull after you sober up is not the answer. Mr Obama, strong women convinced you to support partial birth abortions on demand? Strong women convinced you that any abortion on demand is a suitable replacement for good judgment and a sense of responsibility?

The Democrats mantra includes the option to just eliminate the result of bad judgment and reckless actions. Strong women would teach their children to do the best they can, follow the rules and accept responsibility for their actions.

Mr Obama, how do abortions on demand give your daughters the same opportunities as your sons? Your arguments in support of your position on abortion make no sense. Choosing abortion is simply having the power of life and death over a defenseless individual who had no say in the decision. If you assist in creating life by poor decision making, you do not have the right to extinguish that life. This is reproductive responsibility not reproductive rights.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama: Strong Women Made Him Pro-Choice

July 18, 2007 10:44 AM ET
While Sen. Barack Obama may not be the female candidate, he cited a family of strong women as part of his reason for supporting reproductive rights at a Planned Parenthood event Tuesday.

Financially assisted by a grandmother, raised mostly by a single mother, and surrounded by an intelligent wife and two young daughters, Obama asked his audience, “Will our daughters grow up with the same opportunities as our sons?”

He thought not.

Obama on abortion rights: Justices need broad ‘vision’

July 18, 2007
BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist
WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) previewed what would be his presidential philosophy in appointing Supreme Court justices Tuesday to a group dedicated to preserving abortion rights.

Speaking to a receptive crowd at a Planned Parenthood event, Obama, asked about how to make sure justices back abortion rights, said the court needs justices who believe the Constitution need to be broadly interpreted.

An earlier post on this blog emphasized the pro-partial birth abortion stance of Obama, Clinton and Edwards. In that post any complication posed for voters on reducing the candidate field to a short list for 2008 was partly simplified. If you oppose the skull crushing procedure known as partial birth abortion, Obama, Clinton or Edwards are not your candidates. Based on the following press release from Bill Richardson, you can take him off the possible list too.

For Immediate Release: 04/18/2007

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson Calls Supreme Court Decision on Abortion Ban a “Dangerous Step Backward”

SANTA FE, NM- New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson’s today joined with Americans across the country in criticizing the US Supreme Court decision in the Federal Abortion Ban cases.

“Today the Supreme Court took a dangerous step backward in regard to Americans’ rights to personal choice and privacy,” said Governor Richardson. “In doing so, the Court disregarded the opinion of experienced and respected medical professionals who oppose the ban because there are no exceptions protecting women’s health. While not unexpected, I believe this unfortunate decision is a clear signal that the Supreme Court is opening the door to further challenges to personal medical decisions between patients and doctors that should not involve the government.”

Governor Richardson has consistently opposed any attempt to limit women’s reproductive rights, and as a Congressman voted against similar proposed bans and restrictions on a number of occasions.
“I am concerned, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated so clearly in her dissenting opinion, that this vote could be the beginning of ‘an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court’,” added the Governor. I sincerely hope that is not the case.”

More recently, Richardson indicated he has no problem with activist judges as long as they agree with him. In fairness to Richardson it is proper to note the judicial nomination process is full of political maneuvering and no claim of non-partisan nominations would stand. But Richardson’s position takes the absurdity to a new level.

Richardson would ask court nominees about abortion

Associated Press | 06/22/2007
DES MOINES — If he were president, Democrat Bill Richardson said he would ask potential Supreme Court nominees about their view on abortion and reject those who believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Presidents typically say they don’t ask potential justices about their views on specific cases, but Richardson said Friday that he would make an exception for the landmark 1973 case, which legalized abortions nationally.

“I know I am going to upset some people, but this is what I would ask them,” said Richardson. “I would say, ‘Do you believe that Roe vs Wade is settled law?’ If they say yes, they have a good chance of being picked. If they say no I will not pick them.”

Richardson’s antiwar position as well as a global warming stance rivaling Gore are problematic. His amnesty stance may not even help him with the Latino vote since many Latino Americans have expressed displeasure with illegal immigration and those who unfairly cut in line by breaking the law.

If you don’t support the troops and are in a panic over the idea of global warming, Richardson’s your guy. If you don’t mind crushing the skulls of babies, just like Obama, Clinton and Edwards, Richardson’s your guy. A generic stand on other issues and a preference for amnesty would also make Richardson your guy.

But if you believe in the rule of law, supporting the troops giving unborn babies a chance, take Richardson off your short list. Any one reading this post may wonder why a statement saying all Democrats fall in this group on their positions was omitted. That’s because there is always the chance some Democrat will fall outside the left fringe. Not likely, but it’s possible.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Rarely does one find such a pathetic display to steal votes from the feeble minded portion of the voting public. Obama and Clinton must be targeting voters they view as feeble minded. What other explanation could there be for the totally unconscious arguments offered by these two candidates to rationalize crushing the skulls of babies. Pardon the graphic description but that is exactly what the Supreme Court banned. And talking nice about it won’t change that fact. So one must use the ugly truth about the politically correct terms of partial birth abortion. If you don’t believe that description, read the entire decision at the Supreme Court’s website.

A brief visit to Clinton’s campaign website did not find a position on abortion. All Hillary Rodham Clinton’s references to issues or the text of what she claims are issue statements are vague rhetoric draped with carefully crafted titles to promote her shell game of never taking a clear stand.

Obama has outdone himself on the abortion issue by his unqualified support for partial birth abortion while offering totally unrelated excuses for his position. The only thing clear about such tactics is the intent to sway voters who are too stupid to understand actions have consequences.

While hubby John Edwards was away on his poverty tour begging for votes from the only constituency he hasn’t previously pitched, his wife echoed Democratic party sentiments on partial birth abortion on demand by opposing the Supreme Court decision like her husband’s rivals. They are one big, happy aborting family.

Obama, Clinton and Edwards favor partial birth abortions, abortion on demand and there is no other explanation for it. Cloak it in the false premise of women’s rights or reproductive rights all you want. It is another Democratic party platform item that stresses rights but never responsibility in managing rights. The best thing they have done with their support of totally unrestricted abortion is make voting in 2008 very simple. If you oppose partial birth abortion or abortion of any kind you should vote for someone besides Clinton or Obama or Edwards.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama, Clinton slam court on abortion ruling

Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:15PM EDT
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama criticized recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions as hypocritical and inconsistent on Tuesday, saying a ruling upholding a late-term abortion ban was part of a concerted effort to roll back women’s rights.

Obama said the court’s 5-4 rulings to uphold the late-term abortion ban, make it harder for women to sue over pay discrimination and strike down race-based school assignment programs were part an effort “to steadily roll back the hard-won rights of American women.”

“At the top of the list was this effort to try to overturn Roe vs Wade or at least try to chip away at it,” Clinton said, adding the Bush administration has waged war against contraception education and “set out from Day One to dismantle reproduction rights around the world.”

Democrats Tout Abortion Rights Position

Earlier in the day, Elizabeth Edwards addressed the gathering as a stand-in for her husband, John Edwards, who is on a poverty tour of the country. She highlighted his support of abortion rights. Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards has been critical of the Supreme Court’s late-term abortion ruling.

This is exactly the reason I changed my long standing pro-choice position. After deciding it is better to not ban something like abortion because all circumstances cannot be predicted and it may be appropriate for matters other than birth control for dummies, there were limited occasions for review of that stand. Then the situation changed dramatically, at least for me.

After the Gonzales v Carhart decision and reactions to it made the news, everything seemed to change. Even though it was more accurately my failure to keep up with an adequate number of details. It started with Ginsberg’s dissent and complaint opposing the decision and comments by ‘leaders’ like Pelosi. There statements characterizing the Supreme Court decision as a defeat for women’ s rights appalled me. Since vast numbers of people have proven to me they approve of abortion on demand with no responsibility attached and as a convenience masked as women’s rights, my position changed. For the rare circumstance that an abortion may be reasonable, the large number of them being performed and the willingness of many to accept ’skull crushing’ partial birth procedures demands public outrage and a total ban on abortion.

This recent report on this issue involving the various organized participants in the public debate and lobbying strengthens my recent choice. The quagmire of interpretation and the bickering between special interest magnify the need for a total ban on abortion and to end the argument once and for all. If you are too stupid to have sex without needing an abortion to eliminate a common undesirable outcome, then perhaps your skull should be crushed rather than an infant who had no choice in the matter.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Supreme Court Ruling Brings Split in Antiabortion Movement

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 4, 2007; A03
In a highly visible rift in the anti-abortion movement, a coalition of evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic groups is attacking a longtime ally, Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson.

At the center of the dispute is the Supreme Court’s April 18 decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a federal law against a procedure in which a doctor partially delivers a late-term fetus before crushing its skull.

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Committees of Correspondence, Mark My Words, Big Dog’s Weblog, Maggie’s Notebook, DragonLady’s World, the so called me, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Pet’s Garden Blog, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has placed much faith in Bill Clinton to launch her campaign. All the talk of his apparent rock star status among the fringe left may be a chink in the armor. The fringe left is a volatile mixture known to turn on their own on a whim. Perhaps Hillary Rodham Clinton’s overconfidence comes from the steadfast support received to date from the far left liberal Democrats. As for Bill’s rock star status, at best it offers the risk of a new contestant on American Idol and at worst it is Milli Vanilli, the Dixie Chicks, Madonna and Cheryl Crow rolled into one.

Some evidence of the chink in the armor or house of cards that is Hillary Rodham Clinton begins to surface. From falling to third place in Iowa, to the downside of snuggling Bill for votes, her ability to stay in the hunt is questionable.

The article below talks about her less than impressive support in New York state.

No love for Hillary Clinton in 14850

Hillary Project, CA -
A well-known Democrat like Hillary, who is one of the most recognizable faces on the planet, should have no problems raising money and getting votes in our …

To those who believe her husband’s support is an ace in the hole, a couple of reports that compare the failed rock star and baggage.

Bill adds charm, baggage to Hillary’s bid

Lawrence Journal World, KS -
Martin Van Buren had Andrew Jackson. William Howard Taft had Theodore Roosevelt. George HW Bush had Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush had his father. …

Bill Brings His Baggage To Hillary’s Campaign

RealClearPolitics, IL - May 19, 2007
By David Shribman. Martin Van Buren had Andrew Jackson. William Howard Taft had Theodore Roosevelt. George HW Bush had Ronald Reagan.

And even the bizarre alliance between Bush 41 and Bill Clinton as strange bedfellows may have its limitations and after all the press starting with charity appeals, a fallout here would make unfortunate headlines for the Clintons.

Political Memo A Candidacy That May Test a Friendship’s Ties

New York Times, NY - May 18, 2007
By PATRICK HEALY. Former President Bill Clinton is speaking today in the presidential swing state of New Hampshire, but he is not speaking on her behalf; …

With Obama in her mirror and closing and losing out in Iowa to third place Edwards, the Clinton ‘mystique’ may hinge entirely on the insufficient support of the fringe left. For if any liberals have a conscience not indicated by their support of skull crushing abortions and the pedophile promoting, religion bashing ACLU, they would be compelled to oppose the long standing corruption of Clintonitis in 2008 and beyond.

This is why Blog @ MoreWhat.com opposes party politics. If your affiliation with party requires voting for a candidate with Hillary Rodham Clinton’s history, that single misguided loyalty supports our position against party politics. To argue that political reality establishes a need for ‘party voting’ equates the behavior with mob mentality. It is the kind of thinking that results in political deals between opposing ideologies that rarely solves anything. An example would be vote trading in Congress. As in I’ll vote for your bill if you vote for mine. Or loading bad bills with even worse amendments and pork to either defeat the measure or get perks for passing it. How can we expect any good out of a legislative body that permits this behavior and works to justify it?

This is the same mentality that allows someone like Hillary Clinton to be a potential candidate after all the evidence to the contrary that it is reasonable. The outcomes that follow the 2008 Presidential election will say more about the American public than any candidate. Do we have the courage to make decisions based on what is right over what may be expedient or self-serving?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gonzales v Carhart, a press release by the ACLU and actions by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and others have presented a reason for this writer to reconsider a position of favoring what may be called a pro-choice stance on abortion.

More accurately, my personal view toward pro-choice was primarily governed by a reluctance to support the complete elimination of any choice a person can reasonably select especially when the public is largely divided on the topic. Allowing a woman to abort a pregnancy that resulted from rape, incest or one which threatened her own life did not seem to me to be unreasonable. And in general, choosing to abort shortly after conception, while not a choice to be advocated, may prove reasonable under some circumstance.

I never believed it was proper to perform an abortion on a whim or as a convenience or as contraception for dummies. And under no circumstance do I believe a partial birth, late term, 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion or whatever you choose to call it, is an acceptable abortion choice.

The Supreme Court decision to uphold a ban on what may be characterized as late term abortions, as defined in the majority opinion of Gonzales v Carhart (click here to download pdf file), the reaction to the opinion by what appears to be most pro-choice advocates and a redundant legislative proposal supported by Senator Barbara Boxer and others has caused me to reexamine my position on this topic.

If the details of ‘ending fetal life’ as discussed in Gonzales v Carhart are not sufficient to convince every person as to the barbaric nature and unnecessary selection of this particular ‘medical’ procedure and that no one should be allowed to make this selection, the ability of our species to advance beyond our current condition is severely limited.

While many arguments could be presented to compare and contrast my conclusion in the preceding paragraph, how anyone can defend the use of the procedure described above is beyond my ability to understand. Therefore, I honestly submit that the ACLU, Senator Barbara Boxer and others are entirely and completely misguided in opposing the Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v Carhart. And even if it were put to a public vote as to whether or not Roe v Wade should be upheld or discarded solely based on late term abortions I would have to agree with it being discarded. And that comes from a largely pro-choice advocate.

Of the many other viewpoints and arguments available, I would like to add that there are many other issues within this topic that need to be addressed. A brief example would be that if men are to held liable for the care and well-being of any child for which they are the biological father, then allowing the woman to have complete control and rights over whether to complete or terminate a pregnancy is largely flawed. If two people are responsible for a pregnancy, then both should share the responsibilities and rights for the consequences of their actions. This of course addresses what might be described as a ‘normal’ pregnancy and not one caused by rape, incest or other situation that complicates the point. I know I just added to all the potential criticism with this last set of statements, but I trust that most readers will understand what has been expressed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The press release from the ACLU is presented below as well as references to proposed legislation intended to circumvent the Supreme Court decision.

ACLU Applauds Introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act (4/19/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its strong support for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D - CA) and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D - NY). This legislation would preserve women’s health and reproductive rights by protecting their right to privacy and ability to make their own reproductive choices.

This new legislation is especially important in light of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision upholding a federal ban on certain abortion procedures over the strong objections of the medical community, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an organization representing 90 percent of the country’s OB-GYNs.

“This latest attack on women’s reproductive health shows once again the pressing need for legislation keeping personal medical decisions in the hands of doctors and their patients,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, we still believe that doctors, not politicians, are most qualified to determine the safest course of treatment for their patients. The Freedom of Choice Act will protect women’s relationships with their doctors from political intrusion.”

The Freedom of Choice Act would restore critical protections for women’s health, a core principle of Roe v. Wade that was undercut by yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling. It would protect the right of women, in conjunction with their doctors, to make personal medical decisions and prohibit the government interfering in those decisions.

Said Fredrickson, “At a time when the core protections of Roe v. Wade are under attack, FOCA is essential to guarantee reproductive freedom in federal law for future generations of American women. The ACLU strongly supports this important legislation and urges Congress to lend the bill its support.”

2. [110th] H.R.1964 : To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 4/19/2007) Cosponsors (71)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

3. [110th] S.1173 : A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 4/19/2007) Cosponsors (15)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R.3719
Title: To prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 1/21/2004) Cosponsors (87)
Related Bills: S.2020
Latest Major Action: 3/1/2004 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

S.2020
Title: A bill to prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 1/22/2004) Cosponsors (17)
Related Bills: H.R.3719
Latest Major Action: 1/22/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.ALL ACTIONS:

1/22/2004:
Introductory remarks on measure. (CR S186-187)
1/22/2004:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Pet Haven Blog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, , Pirate’s Cove, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.